Bowing to pressure from 32 state attorneys general to curb the depiction of smoking in movies, the Moving Picture Association of America has just conceded “the basic principle that public-health lobbyists and politicians should have a big role in deciding what people will see, instead of letting the industry merely cater to its audience.” But state governments “have no more business determining what appears on movie screens than they do in deciding what goes into Judy Blume’s next novel. …The MPAA’s response validates the politicians in their intrusions, and beckons them to find new ways to regulate art and other matters that are supposed to be exempt from their control.” (Steve Chapman, syndicated/Orlando Sentinel, May 21). More: Michael Siegel, May 11, May 16, May 17; Jacob Sullum, May 16. Earlier: Sept. 1, 2003.
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
Islamic Society of Boston uses litigation to silence its critics
Pajamas Media’s Martin Solomon reports on the Islamic Society of Boston’s extensive use of litigation to silence critics, ranging from moderate Muslims to a local interfaith group to local reporters and newspapers, who question whether the organization has ties to Islamic radicals. The David Project has a set of links to court documents. Daniel Pipes has also been covering the matter. ISB’s attorney is Howard Cooper, who recently won affirmance of a $2.1 million verdict against the Boston Herald, which had criticized a local judge (May 11). See also Jeff Jacoby, “New questions for the ISB”, Boston Globe, Apr. 25. Earlier on Overlawyered: Aug. 27 (ISB subpoenas talk show); May 19; Jan. 5, 2006.
Update: Speechless in Seattle
Free speech survives intact: the Washington Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that radio talk show hosts’ urging of listeners to support a ballot measure does not constitute a “contribution” to the yes side for purposes of mandatory reporting under campaign finance law. (Ryan Sager, New York Sun blog, Apr. 26). We covered the charges against KVI hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson Jul. 11 and Jul. 19, 2005. Eugene Volokh has extensive coverage of the new decision. A concurring opinion by Justice James M. Johnson, joined by Justice Richard B. Sanders, terms the enforcement a case of “abusive prosecution”. More: Michelle Malkin; John Fund, OpinionJournal.com, Apr. 30.
Protest a group home, get investigated for housing bias
They’re doing it again in California: “State and federal authorities have opened an investigation into a Norco housewife, alleging that her vitriolic protests against a high-risk group home in her neighborhood may constitute housing discrimination.” Federal officials asked state fair housing regulators to investigate Julie Waltz, 61, who had protested plans to open a group house next to her home for developmentally disabled residents; among those eligible to reside there under state law would be persons deemed not competent to stand trial on sex crime charges. In 2000, the Ninth Circuit ruled that three Berkeley, Calif. neighbors’ rights had been violated by an “extraordinarily intrusive and chilling” investigation of whether their protests had been contrary to housing discrimination law. In that episode, as in the latest one, housing advocates had set the investigation in motion by filing complaints against the neighbors.
A spokesman for the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development acknowledged that in order to recommend the inquiry, it had to push aside internal guidelines that prohibit such an investigation because it infringes on the 1st Amendment.
The rules require that complaints of housing discrimination be investigated only in cases in which the alleged victim’s safety has been threatened.
No such allegation has been made against Waltz, but HUD opened an investigation into her and state investigators ordered her to respond to the complaint in detail because a preliminary review showed that someone else in the neighborhood may have made a violent threat, said HUD spokesman Larry Bush.
(Garrett Therolf, “Protester of group home is targeted”, Los Angeles Times, Mar. 20).
Bong hits 4 shakedown?
Dana Milbank (WaPo) on yesterday’s Bong Hits 4 Jesus Supreme Court oral argument (h/t LL):
“…Mertz, arguing for the student, fared even worse than Starr and Kneedler. He got out only one sentence — “This is a case about free speech; it is not a case about drugs” — before Roberts interrupted.
“It’s a case about money,” the chief justice said.
“Would you waive damages against this principal, who has devoted her life to this school?” asked Kennedy. “You’re seeking damages from her for this sophomoric sign that was held up.”
Ralph de Toledano, Nader victim
A prominent and much-admired figure in conservative journalism for decades, Ralph de Toledano died last month at the age of 90. (Dave Zincavage, Feb. 6). The Washington Post in its obituary recounts a sequence of events that did much to darken de Toledano’s later years:
In 1975, consumer activist Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit against De Toledano in connection with a De Toledano suggestion — denied by Nader — that Nader had “falsified and distorted” evidence about the Corvair automobile. The case lingered in court for years and cost De Toledano his life savings. Paul Toledano [son of the author] said it was settled out of court.
(Joe Holley, “Ralph de Toledano, 90; author and ‘nonconformist conservative'”, Washington Post/L.A. Times, Feb. 10).
De Toledano in fact had published an entire critical biography of Nader, entitled Hit and Run: The Rise — and Fall? — of Ralph Nader, used copies of which remain available online — even Nader himself can’t prevent that. The entire episode — in which Mr. Litigation, then at the height of his public fame and influence, inflicted vindictive and personal financial ruin on a well-known journalist who’d had the temerity to criticize him — is one that you’d think would have provoked expressions of concern and solidarity from leading writers and civil libertarians of the day, and yet it didn’t (scroll to #8). The episode tends to get no mention these days in accounts of Nader’s life (which, whatever their varying opinions of his actions as a spoiler presidential candidate, tend toward cloying hagiography of his earlier career). And one consequence of its lingering chilling effect (who wants to volunteer to be the next de Toledano?) may be that no one will be willing to write another genuinely unsparing biography of Nader, at least for publication during the subject’s lifetime.
For a sampling of our posts about Nader, see Jun. 13, 2000; Feb. 22, 2004; and this set of 2000-2003 links.
“When the courts gag parents”
“[A] wide range of parental speech has been prohibited by family courts, all in the name of the child’s best interests. … Even more courts have based custody decisions partly on parent-child speech and religious upbringing. In Michigan, for example, courts routinely favor the parent who takes the children to church more often. Other courts have denied parents custody based partly on the parents’ teaching their children the propriety of racism, polygamy or homosexuality….
“[F]ew courts have grappled with the question whether judges are allowed under the First Amendment to make such decisions. … Many people would trade all their free-speech rights for the right to teach their own children. And government power to constrain how parents teach their own children is dangerous. Restricting the spread of ideas from parent to child can help today’s majority, or today’s elite, entrench its views. Also, the power to suppress parents’ speech might spread beyond divorces to intact families, too.” (Eugene Volokh (UCLA Law), L.A. Times/Newsday, Feb. 12)(discussion at Volokh Conspiracy).
“France cartoons lawsuit to begin”
“Two French Muslim organisations are suing the magazine Charlie Hebdo for printing cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad. … Supporters of the magazine, including some French Muslims, say the trial is a test case for free speech.” No, really, you don’t say? (BBC, Feb. 7).
“Prof. defends right to send feces”
Good news for poo-flingers: a Colorado lawyer is arguing (on behalf of a client facing misdemeanor charges) that there’s a First Amendment right to deliver dog droppings to someone’s office as a means of political self-expression, at least if the lucky recipient is a member of Congress. (AP/Boston Globe, Jan. 18).
Newspaper owner: remove that window sign or else
Highlights Hair Salon owner Eric Zahm sympathized with workers seeking to form a union at the Santa Barbara News-Press, so he put a sign in his window reading “McCaw Obey the Law”, referring to the paper’s owner, Wendy McCaw. Next thing you know, McCaw’s lawyer, Barry Cappello, fired off a letter to Zahm threatening “appropriate action” if the sign were not taken down, on the grounds that the sign’s message exposed his client to “hatred, contempt and ridicule.” Zahm caved in for fear of a suit and took down the sign. So much for the notion that all newspaper magnates are devotees of freedom of speech (Matt Cota, “Santa Barbara News-Press Owner Threatens Hair Stylist Over Sign”, KSBY, Dec. 15).
More: In the comments, reader “imafish” alerts us to another lawsuit in which Ampersand Publishing LLC, which publishes the News-Press, has sued reporter Susan Paterno, claiming that an article she wrote about the newspaper in the American Journalism Review was a “biased, false and misleading diatribe”; charging her with libel and product disparagement, it asks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. (Greg Risling, “Publisher Sues Reporter Over Story”, AP/Newsday, Dec. 19).